Dismissed¶81

Sri.Shantappa and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2025WP/225823/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rule 42-B KCSR time scale pay; Rule 32 KCSR independent charge current duties of vacant post; Rule 68 KCSR charge allowance 7.5% additional pay; Reserve Sub-Inspector (RSI) Higher Post; Armed Police Constable; pay fixation; increments; pensionary benefits; subsequent regular promotion; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal Application Nos.11124 and 11125 of 2016; endorsement; writ of certiorari; WP No. 225823 of 2020 (S-KAT); High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench; decided 16.06.2025; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On its plain reading, Rule 42-B of KCSR extends time-scale pay only where an employee is subsequently promoted on regular basis to the post in which he had officiated. ¶74

Sri.Shantappa and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' appointment under order dated 30.01.2013 under Rule 32 and Rule 68 of KCSR qualifies as a promotion for the purpose of Rule 42-B of KCSR?

¶50

Court's answer

On its plain reading, Rule 42-B of KCSR extends time-scale pay only where an employee is subsequently promoted on regular basis to the post in which he had officiated.

¶74

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were placed in independent charge of the RSI post under Rule 32 and were not promoted through any formal promotion; their appointments were temporary, so they do not meet the conditions of Rule 42-B of KCSR and cannot claim RSI pay-scale or pensionary benefits.

¶74

Key takeaways

The Tribunal's rejection of the petitioners' claim is in line with Rules 32, 68 and 42-B of KCSR.ratio¶74
Rule 32 of KCSR permits appointing a Government servant to be in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post instead of appointing him to officiate in that post.ratio¶60
Per Note-1 to Rule 32, a Government servant can be placed in-charge under that Rule only if he is eligible to be promoted to officiate in that post as per the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules or is holding a post in an equivalent or higher grade.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CAV order (per Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K S Hemalekha), High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, 16.06.2025: Two retired Reserve Sub-Inspectors, who as Armed Police Constables were placed in independent charge of vacant RSI posts by order dated 30.01.2013 under Rule 32 read with Rule 68 KCSR and served until retirement in 2013-14, claimed time-scale pay, increments and pensionary benefits under Rule 42-B KCSR. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Application Nos.11124 and 11125/2016, order dated 05.03.2018) had rejected the plea and confirmed the departmental endorsements. Answering the point framed, the Court held that Rule 42-B extends time-scale pay only where the employee is subsequently promoted on a regular basis to the post in which he had officiated; placement in independent charge under Rule 32 (entitling only charge allowance under Rule 68) is a temporary arrangement and not a formal promotion, so the petitioners do not meet the conditions of Rule 42-B and cannot claim RSI pay-scale or pensionary benefits. Writ petition dismissed; the Tribunal's order stands confirmed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.225823 OF 2020 (S-KAT)

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI.SHANTAPPA S/O LAKKAPPA SANGOLAGI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED RSI, S.P. OFFICE, YADGIRI – 585 201. R/O# 6-1, CHANAVEER NAGAR, TAJ SULTHANPUR ROAD, NEAR YELLALING TEMPLE OPPOSITE ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 105.

¶14

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. CHANDRAKANT S/O VENKABA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED RSI, S.P. OFFICE, YADGIRI-585201. R/O: 2/898 VEERESH NAGAR, MRMC MEDICAL COLLEGE BEHIND, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 105.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶23

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶24

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH-EASTERN RANGE, POLICE BHAVAN, KALABURAGI – 585 102.

¶25

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE YADGIR – 585 201.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NOS.11124/2016 AND 11125/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS.1124 AND 11125/2016 AS PRAYED FOR; AND PASS ANY ORDER OR ORDERS WHICH MAY BE DEEMED FIT BY THE HON’BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING.

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND

¶33

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA

¶34

CAV ORDER

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)

¶36

The petitioners are challenging the order dated 05.03.2018 in Application Nos.11124 and 11125 of 2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the applicants’ plea for grant of time scale pay, increments and pensionary benefits for the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector(RSI) (Higher Post) under Rule 42-B of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, ‘KCSR’), was dismissed and the endorsements issued by the Inspector General of Police stood confirmed.

¶37

The petitioners were working as Armed Police Constables in Police Department. Vide order dated 30.01.2013, they were placed in independent charge of vacant RSI post under Rule 32 read with Rule 68 of KCSR. The petitioners

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

continued to perform duties of RSI until their retirement in 2013-14. The petitioners being not extended the benefits as revised to RSI Scale, submitted representations seeking such benefits under Rule 42-B of the KCSR, which came to be rejected by the department, leading to filing of applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected their applications holding that the petitioners are not promoted on regular basis and their service in RSI post cannot be counted for pay fixation or pension under Rule 42-B of KCSR.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2013, the petitioners were appointed to the vacant post of RSI and discharged the full responsibilities and duties of that post until their retirement. It is argued that under Rule 42-B of KCSR, officiating service in a higher post should count for pay fixation, increments and pensionary benefits and the denial of the increments is unjust and arbitrary.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State inviting the attention of this court to the

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

order dated 30.01.2013 submits that the appointment of the petitioners to the RSI post was temporary and conditional made under Rule 32 of KCSR, which does not confer regular status. It is submitted that under Rule 32 of KCSR such charge does not entitle the officer to the promotion benefits or pay scale to the higher post. It is submitted that the benefit under Rule 42-B of KCSR can only extended where an employee is subsequently promoted on regular basis to the post in which he had officiated. The petitioners retired without being promoted to RSI post and hence they do not fulfill the condition under Rule 42-B of KCSR.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶48

the point that arises for consideration is”

¶49

“Whether the petitioners appointment under order

¶50

dated 30.01.2013 under Rule 32 and Rule 68 of KCSR qualifies as a promotion for the purpose of Rule 42-B of KCSR?”

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

In order to answer the point for consideration, we

¶55

have considered the scope of Rule 32, Rule 68 and Rule 42-B of KCSR.

¶56

7. Rule 32 of KCSR reads as under:

¶57

“32. Instead of appointing a Government servant to officiate, it is also permissible to appoint him to be in charge of the current duties of a vacant post. In such a case a “charge allowance” (additional pay) is payable as specified in Rule 68.

¶58

[Note 1].- A Government servant can be appointed under this Rule to be in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post only if he is eligible to be promoted to officiate in that post according to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable to that post or if he is holding a post in an equivalent or higher grade.]

¶59

[Note 2]. - The provisions of this Rule apply also to cases where a Government servant being relieved of his own appointment is appointed to be in independent charge of a higher appointment as a temporary measure.]”

¶60

Rule 32 of KCSR allows the Government to appoint Government servants to be “in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post” instead of appointing him to officiate in that post.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Note-1 to Rule 32 of KCSR states that a Government Servant

¶65

can be placed in-charge under this Rule only if “he is eligible to be promoted to officiate to that post as per the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules or he is holding a post in an equivalent or higher grade”. Note-2 to Rule 32 of KCSR applies in situation where a Government servant, being relieved of his substantive appointment, is appointed to be in independent charge of a higher appointment as a temporary measure.

¶66

9. Rule 68 of KCSR reads as under:

¶67

“[68. When a Government servant is appointed to be in-charge of the current duties or independent charge of an office, in addition to his own duties and the charge entails a substantial increase of responsibility and some additional work, he shall be entitled to 7.5% of the minimum of the scale of pay applicable to the post in which he is placed in-charge or independent charge, as additional pay (charge allowance) to be fixed by the authority competent to appoint him as such.]

¶68

xxxxxxx.”

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

10. Rule 42-B of KCSR reads as under:

¶72

“[42-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, when a Government servant is promoted to a post or appointed to an ex-cadre post and such promotion or appointment involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those of the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay in the time scale of the lower post at the time of such fixation:

¶73

xxxxxxx.”

¶74

The plain reading of Rule 42-B of KCSR clearly envisages that time pay scale can only be extended where an employee is subsequently promoted on regular basis to the post in which he had officiated. The petitioners were placed in an independent charge of RSI post under Rule 32 and not promoted through any formal promotion. Their appointments were made on a temporary basis as could be seen from the order dated 30.01.2013. The petitioners do not meet the conditions of Rule 42-B of KCSR which requires subsequent regular promotion and they cannot claim RSI pay-scale or pensionary benefits. The Tribunal’s rejection of their claim is in line with Rules 32, 68 and 42-B of KCSR.

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3089-DB WP No. 225823 of 2020

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

For the foregoing reasons, the point for

¶79

consideration is answered accordingly and we pass the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

i) The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶82

ii) The order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi in Application Nos.11124 and 11125/2016 stands confirmed.

¶83

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

(K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶86

BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:NI

Sri.Shantappa and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Shantappa and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalamma Vs Ambawwa

Laxmi and Ors. Vs Nagaraj @ Nagaraj Shaukar and Ors.

Prajwal Vs Nagaraj @ Nagaraj Shaukar and Ors.

The State of Karnataka Vs Kallappa S/O Irappa Kadlevad

The President and Anr. Vs M/S Vishal Enterprises and Anr.

Mallappa Chokka Vs the Stae of Karnataka